Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by stating explicit exclusions ('Does not include the signer's email or a signing URL'), which prevents an agent from calling it expecting contact or link data, and 'Get' implies a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the order ID is unknown or belongs to another account, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose and followed by the exclusions clause — an efficient structure with no filler. The field enumeration is dense and slightly overlapping ('envelope status and timestamps', 'signed time', 'timeline'), but each item still helps an agent judge whether the response contains the data it needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return surface itself, which it does by listing the fields and naming the notable omissions. For a single-parameter read-by-ID tool that is largely sufficient; only error/not-found behavior and ownership/auth expectations are left uncovered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter order_id has only a uuid format hint in the schema. The description adds a modest amount by framing the ID as identifying 'one of your orders', implying ownership scoping, but it gives no guidance on where the ID comes from or what happens with an invalid or foreign ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one of your orders') and then enumerates the returned content (status, amounts, envelope status, timestamps, signer name, timeline), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like order.draft or quote.get, so sibling differentiation is left implicit through the 'your orders' scoping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'one of your orders' implies the caller must already have an order ID (i.e. retrieval, not creation), but the description never states that order.draft creates orders or that quote.get is for quotes, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.